I would be interested in someone analyzing when the constitution would permit a private citizen to take up arms against a sitting government (if any such circumstance exists).
To my knowledge, the interpretation which comes closest is Insurrectionist theory which interprets the right to bear arms as including the right of citizens to use them to defend against an oppressive government. There are apparently more explicit statements of this right in the preambles to some first-state constitutions, as well as the declaration of independence.
It should not be surprising that nobody has yet won on such a case in court though, and practically speaking you don’t have this right[1].
My understanding has been that even if you are arrested unlawfully by a police officer, you can’t use proportional force (as you would if you were assaulted by a non-police-officer), since the perspective of the government is that it is the judiciary’s right to determine whether an arrest is or isn’t lawful, not the citizen’s.
Except implicitly the founders themselves, who of course supported the right to revolution. Or at least supported that right for themselves. But originalism has never been a popular (or coherent) constitutional philosophy.
To my knowledge, the interpretation which comes closest is Insurrectionist theory which interprets the right to bear arms as including the right of citizens to use them to defend against an oppressive government. There are apparently more explicit statements of this right in the preambles to some first-state constitutions, as well as the declaration of independence.
It should not be surprising that nobody has yet won on such a case in court though, and practically speaking you don’t have this right [1] .
My understanding has been that even if you are arrested unlawfully by a police officer, you can’t use proportional force (as you would if you were assaulted by a non-police-officer), since the perspective of the government is that it is the judiciary’s right to determine whether an arrest is or isn’t lawful, not the citizen’s.
Except implicitly the founders themselves, who of course supported the right to revolution. Or at least supported that right for themselves. But originalism has never been a popular (or coherent) constitutional philosophy.